Veda is the real Science. Let's all be united by this Jnaana Yagna. (Note: Kannada Font: Tunga, Sanskrit Font: Mangal)

Sunday, 14 February 2016

LIGO’s discovery is a fallacy

It is claimed that the LIGO and LISA projects will detect Einstein's gravitational
waves. The existence of these waves is entirely theoretical. Over the past forty years
or so no Einstein gravitational waves have been detected. How long must the search
go on, at great expense to the public purse, before the astrophysical scientists admit
that their search is fruitless and a waste of vast sums of public money? The fact is,
from day one, the search for these elusive waves has been destined to detect nothing.
Here are some reasons why.
Einstein's gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed
of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a
different speed of propagation. Einstein and his followers deliberately choose a set of
coordinates that gives the speed of propagation as that of light in vacuum (i.e. c =
2.998x10^8
m/s). There is no a priori reason why this particular set of coordinates is
better than any other. The sole reason for their choice is to obtain the desired result.
Such a method has no validity in science. [1]

Einstein realised that his field equations do not satisfy the usual conservation of
energy and momentum for a closed system and so, in order to save his theory from
this catastrophe he simply invented something, ad hoc, to make his theory (apparently)
satisfy the usual conservation laws; namely, his pseudo-tensor. Not only is this
unscientific, it is also unconscionable, and completely fallacious

According to Einstein and his followers, his Principle of Equivalence and his laws of
Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field,
and such regions can be located anywhere therein. Now the Principle of Equivalence
and the laws of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of
multiple arbitrarily large finite masses, and so neither the Principle of Equivalence nor
the laws of Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction
contains no matter.

“Black holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein’s field
equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the
Einstein equations of General Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in
an asymptotically flat space-time.” [2]

It is invariably claimed by the astrophysical scientists that the binary pulsar PSR
1913+16 provides physical evidence of Einstein’s gravitational waves. This alleged
evidence is indirect in that an apparent decrease in the orbital period is determined by
observational methods and this decrease in period is simply attributed to a loss of
energy of the binary system by means of radiation of gravitational waves. No such
waves have ever been detected. Now there are a number of fallacious assumptions
with this argument.

First, there are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations
for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be claimed that his field equations contain latent representations for such configurations
of matter. Thus, the description of a binary system has no valid basis in General
Relativity. In fact, General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact
that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release.

Second, one cannot pile
up masses in any given spacetime because Einstein’s field equations are non-linear,
which simply means that each and every configuration of matter must first be
described by a concomitant energy-momentum tensor and the field equations solved
for it. One can conceptually pile up any number of masses in the space of Newton’s
theory of gravitation, although the mathematical complexities of multiple masses
quickly become intractable; but there is no conceptual barrier to many masses being
present. One cannot however, by means of an analogy with Newton’s theory, talk of
multiple body interactions in General Relativity. Now Einstein gravitational waves
are relevant only to General Relativity. So upon what set of Einstein field equations
and upon what solution thereto do the astrophysical scientists rely for a description of
a binary system such as PSR 1913+16? The answer is simple: none! They simply
apply an inadmissible analogy with Newton’s theory.

Third, the astrophysical
scientists arbitrarily attribute an alleged loss of energy in the binary system to the
emission of gravitational waves, propagating at the speed of light. However, as we
have seen, there is no unique speed of propagation for these elusive waves, the speed
of propagation being coordinate dependent. The astrophysical scientists just pick a set
of coordinates to make the numbers come out the way they prefer it. Furthermore,
since the total energy of Einstein’s gravitational field and sources is always zero, there
can be no localisation of gravitational energy at all i.e. no Einstein gravitational waves
are possible.

Fourth, the mathematical analysis of the phantasmagorical gravitational
waves of PSR 1913+16 makes use of the linearised form of Einstein’s field equations
and Einstein’s pseudo-tensor to localise gravitational energy. But we have seen that
Einstein’s pseudo-tensor is entirely meaningless owing to its implication of the
existence of a linear invariant which does not exist!

All claims for Einstein
gravitational waves are wishful thinking.

It is also worth noting that all alleged black hole solutions pertain to a Universe that
allegedly contains only one mass. Since there are no known solutions to Einstein’s
field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even
be claimed that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of
matter, these alleged black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual
spacetime that by construction contains no other masses. In the case of Schwarzschild
spacetime, the spacetime contains no matter whatsoever, and so two alleged
Schwarzschild black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual
spacetime that by construction contains no matter. It is quite plain that the notions of
black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter such
as galactic matter, colliding or merging, and producing gravitational waves, have no
basis whatsoever in General Relativity.

One does not need to analyse the LIGO apparatus and its alleged signal detection to now that it is all nonsense, for the simple reason that it is all based upon fallacies. The latest report on LIGO’s ‘discovery’ of Einstein gravitational waves is no more connected to reality than the fictitious black hole:

Abstract: A number of methods have been employed by cosmologists to effect what they call an ‘extension’ of their
‘Schwarzschild solution’, to remove the singularity at their ‘Schwarzschild radius’ rs
= 2Gm/c^2; the latter they maintain is the
radius of the ‘event horizon’ of a black hole. They call the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius a coordinate singularity. The
method of extension most often employed by cosmologists is the Kruskal-Szekeres extension, but sometimes the Painlevé-
Gullstrand extension is used. The quantity r appearing in all these metrics is invariably treated by cosmologists as the radial
distance, most evident in their ‘Schwarzschild radius’. Intuitively, radial distance is ≥ 0 and so, on their false assumption that r
is the radial distance in the ‘Schwarzschild solution’, the cosmologists seek to drive it down to zero where they say there is a
physical singularity. Although cosmologists have devised mathematical-like methods to seemingly do this, to produce their
black hole, all their methods violate the rules of pure mathematics and so they are inadmissible. Consequently, the Painlevé-
Gullstrand ‘extension’ is invalid. Moreover, since material sources cannot be both present in and absent from Einstein’s field
equations by the very same mathematical constraint, the whole theory of black holes is fallacious. [3]

It is no more real than the fictitious Cosmic Microwave Background:

Abstract: In this work, results obtained by the WMAP satellite are analyzed by invoking
established practices for signal acquisition and processing in nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Dynamic range, image
reconstruction, signal to noise, resolution, contrast, and reproducibility are specifically
discussed. WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging
research. WMAP images are obtained by attempting to remove a galactic foreground
contamination which is 1,000 times more intense than the desired signal. Unlike water
suppression in biological NMR, this is accomplished without the ability to affect the
signal at the source and without a priori knowledge. Resulting WMAP images have
an exceedingly low signal to noise (maximum 1–2) and are heavily governed by data
processing. Final WMAP internal linear combination (ILC) images are made from 12
section images. Each of these, in turn, is processed using a separate linear combination
of data. The WMAP team extracts cosmological implications from their data, while
ignoring that the ILC coefficients do not remain constant from year to year. In contrast
to standard practices in medicine, difference images utilized to test reproducibility are
presented at substantially reduced resolution. ILC images are not presented for year
two and three. Rather, year-1 data is signal averaged in a combined 3-year data set.
Proper tests of reproducibility require viewing separate yearly ILC images. Fluctuations
in the WMAP images arise from the inability to remove the galactic foreground,
and in the significant yearly variations in the foreground itself. Variations in the map
outside the galactic plane are significant, preventing any cosmological analysis due to
yearly changes. This occurs despite the masking of more than 300 image locations.
It will be advanced that any “signal” observed by WMAP is the result of foreground
effects, not only from our galaxy, but indeed yearly variations from every galaxy in
the Universe. Contrary to published analysis, the argument suggests there are only
questionable findings in the anisotropy images, other than those related to image
processing, yearly galactic variability, and point sources. Concerns are also raised
relative to the validity of assigning brightness temperatures in this setting. [4]

Abstract: The COBE Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) operated from 30 to
3,000 GHz (1–95 cm1
) and monitored, from polar orbit ( 900 km), the 3 K microwave
background. Data released from FIRAS has been met with nearly universal admiration.
However, a thorough review of the literature reveals significant problems with
this instrument. FIRAS was designed to function as a differential radiometer, wherein
the sky signal could be nulled by the reference horn, Ical. The null point occurred at
an Ical temperature of 2.759 K. This was 34 mK above the reported sky temperature,
2.725 0.001 K, a value where the null should ideally have formed. In addition, an
18 mK error existed between the thermometers in Ical, along with a drift in temperature
of 3 mK. A 5 mK error could be attributed to Xcal; while a 4 mK error was
found in the frequency scale. A direct treatment of all these systematic errors would
lead to a 64 mK error bar in the microwave background temperature. The FIRAS
team reported 1 mK, despite the presence of such systematic errors. But a 1 mK error
does not properly reflect the experimental state of this spectrophotometer. In the
end, all errors were essentially transferred into the calibration files, giving the appearance
of better performance than actually obtained. The use of calibration procedures
resulted in calculated Ical emissivities exceeding 1.3 at the higher frequencies, whereas
an emissivity of 1 constitutes the theoretical limit. While data from 30–60 GHz was
once presented, these critical points are later dropped, without appropriate discussion,
presumably because they reflect too much microwave power. Data obtained while the
Earth was directly illuminating the sky antenna, was also discarded. From 300–660
GHz, initial FIRAS data had systematically growing residuals as frequencies increased.
This suggested that the signal was falling too quickly in the Wien region of the spectrum.
In later data releases, the residual errors no longer displayed such trends, as the
systematic variations had now been absorbed in the calibration files. The FIRAS team
also cited insufficient bolometer sensitivity, primarily attributed to detector noise, from
600–3,000 GHz. The FIRAS optical transfer function demonstrates that the instrument
was not optimally functional beyond 1,200 GHz. The FIRAS team did not adequately
characterize the FIRAS horn. Established practical antenna techniques strongly suggest
that such a device cannot operate correctly over the frequency range proposed. Insuffi-
cient measurements were conducted on the ground to document antenna gain and field
patterns as a full function of frequency and thereby determine performance. The effects
of signal diffraction into FIRAS, while considering the Sun/Earth/RF shield, were
neither measured nor appropriately computed. Attempts to establish antenna side lobe
performance in space, at 1,500 GHz, are well outside the frequency range of interest
for the microwave background (<600 GHz). Neglecting to fully evaluate FIRAS prior
to the mission, the FIRAS team attempts to do so, on the ground, in highly limited
fashion, with a duplicate Xcal, nearly 10 years after launch. All of these findings indicate
that the satellite was not sufficiently tested and could be detecting signals from
our planet. Diffraction of earthly signals into the FIRAS horn could explain the spectral
frequency dependence first observed by the FIRAS team: namely, too much signal in
the Jeans-Rayleigh region and not enough in the Wien region. Despite popular belief to
the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the
universe and represents the remnants of creation. [5]

It is no more real than the fictitious gaseous Sun:

Abstract: Our Sun has confronted humanity with overwhelming evidence that it is comprised of
condensed matter. Dismissing this reality, the standard solar models continue to be anchored
on the gaseous plasma. In large measure, the endurance of these theories can be
attributed to

1) the mathematical elegance of the equations for the gaseous state,

2) the
apparent success of the mass-luminosity relationship, and

3) the long-lasting influence
of leading proponents of these models.

Unfortunately, no direct physical finding supports
the notion that the solar body is gaseous. Without exception, all observations are
most easily explained by recognizing that the Sun is primarily comprised of condensed
matter. However, when a physical characteristic points to condensed matter, a postori
arguments are invoked to account for the behavior using the gaseous state. In isolation,
many of these treatments appear plausible. As a result, the gaseous models continue to
be accepted. There seems to be an overarching belief in solar science that the problems
with the gaseous models are few and inconsequential. In reality, they are numerous and,
while often subtle, they are sometimes daunting. The gaseous equations of state have
introduced far more dilemmas than they have solved. Many of the conclusions derived
from these approaches are likely to have led solar physics down unproductive avenues,
as deductions have been accepted which bear little or no relationship to the actual nature
of the Sun. It could be argued that, for more than 100 years, the gaseous models have
prevented mankind from making real progress relative to understanding the Sun and the
universe. Hence, the Sun is now placed on trial. Forty lines of evidence will be presented
that the solar body is comprised of, and surrounded by, condensed matter. These
‘proofs’ can be divided into seven broad categories:

1) Planckian,

2) spectroscopic,

3) structural,

4) dynamic,

5) helioseismic,

6) elemental, and

7) earthly.

Collectively,
these lines of evidence provide a systematic challenge to the gaseous models of the Sun
and expose the many hurdles faced by modern approaches. Observational astronomy
and laboratory physics have remained unable to properly justify claims that the solar
body must be gaseous. At the same time, clear signs of condensed matter interspersed
with gaseous plasma in the chromosphere and corona have been regrettably dismissed.
As such, it is hoped that this exposition will serve as an invitation to consider condensed
matter, especially metallic hydrogen, when pondering the phase of the Sun. [6]

and no more real than the fictitious Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission:

Abstract: Affirming Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal emission, Max Planck conferred upon his own
equation and its constants, h and k, universal significance. All arbitrary cavities were
said to behave as blackbodies. They were thought to contain black, or normal radiation,
which depended only upon temperature and frequency of observation, irrespective of the
nature of the cavity walls. Today, laboratory blackbodies are specialized, heated devices
whose interior walls are lined with highly absorptive surfaces, such as graphite, soot, or
other sophisticated materials. Such evidence repeatedly calls into question Kirchhoff’s
Law, as nothing in the laboratory is independent of the nature of the walls. By focusing
on Max Planck’s classic text, “The Theory of Heat Radiation’, it can be demonstrated
that the German physicist was unable to properly justify Kirchhoff’s Law. At every turn,
he was confronted with the fact that materials possess frequency dependent reflectivity
and absorptivity, but he often chose to sidestep these realities. He used polarized light to
derive Kirchhoff’s Law, when it is well known that blackbody radiation is never polarized.
Through the use of an element, dσ, at the bounding surface between two media,
he reached the untenable position that arbitrary materials have the same reflective properties.
His Eq. 40 (ρ =ρ
′
), constituted a dismissal of experimental reality. It is evident
that if one neglects reflection, then all cavities must be black. Unable to ensure that
perfectly reflecting cavities can be filled with black radiation, Planck inserted a minute
carbon particle, which he qualified as a “catalyst”. In fact, it was acting as a perfect
absorber, fully able to provide, on its own, the radiation sought. In 1858, Balfour Stewart
had outlined that the proper treatment of cavity radiation must include reflection.
Yet, Max Planck did not cite the Scottish scientist. He also did not correctly address
real materials, especially metals, from which reflectors would be constructed. These
shortcomings led to universality, an incorrect conclusion. Arbitrary cavities do not contain
black radiation. Kirchhoff’s formulation is invalid. As a direct consequence, the
constants h and k do not have fundamental meaning and along with “Planck length”,
“Planck time”, “Planck mass”, and “Planck temperature”, lose the privileged position
they once held in physics. [7]

Those who believe in ghosts and goblins see them lurking in the shadows and assign their action to what they don’t understand. Cosmologists likewise see their beliefs lurking in their shadows and assign the action of their beliefs to what they don’t understand.

Mass-media induced mass-hysteria over ghosts and goblins, holes and bangs, Einstein gravitational waves, Higgs bosons and higgsinos, CMB, etc., does not constitute science. The BICEP2 report was also surrounded with similar hysterical scientists and mass-media induced mass-hysteria. That science is now done but mass media hysteria is a symptom of its decay, not a sign of achievement. Rational thought no longer prevails.

We now await Hawking et al to announce their contact with the aliens [8]

They must be out there too; after all, the scientists have a journal for them: The International Journal of Astrobiology, published by Cambridge University, Mr. Hawking’s learned school.Stephen Hawking says:

“Also, suppose two black holes collided and merged together to form a single black
hole. Then the area of the event horizon of the final black hole would be greater than
the sum of the areas of the event horizons of the original black holes.” [9]

Similarly, Bernard F. Schutz asserts:

“... Hawking’s area theorem: in any physical process involving a horizon, the area of
the horizon cannot decrease in time. ... This fundamental theorem has the result that,
while two black holes can collide and coalesce, a single black hole can never
bifurcate spontaneously into two smaller ones.”

“Black holes produced by supernovae would be much harder to observe unless they
were part of a binary system which survived the explosion and in which the other star
was not so highly evolved.” [10]

Curiously, the astrophysical scientists claim to have found black holes all over the
place; but in actual fact nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere. All claims for
discovery of black holes are false. Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for
Extraterrestrial Physics recently admitted this:

Thus, the LIGO and LISA projects and their international counterparts are destined to
detect nothing. Undaunted, the astrophysical scientists however, never let the truth get
in the way of a good story.

3 comments:

Michelson Morley found no change in a similar but smaller set up. Reason lightis a particle moving through empty space BUT components inspace itself in perpetual harmonic oscillation. Waves were movement of stress caused by unequal dispalceemnt. Axiomatic frequency of 1 m waves is 296575966 cps and the difference of Michelson's 299792458 provides a ratio 1.0101845 which is the log ratio of the solra radius to earth orbit radius, See www kapillavastu dot com for a PEFECT axiomatic theory that proves the LIGO findings are just the quantum of stress reflected back fro the universal radial boundary 6.4 billion years away. Divide that by 7^2 /10 = 4.9 as the resonant reflection time and 1.3 billion years is the solution. Sankhya has ALL solutions to any problem in Physics and Cosmology

Electromagnetic waves are, in general, caused by the motion of electrical charges. This causes changes in electric and magnetic fields. Those changes lead to electromagnetic waves which need no interactions with anything in order to travel through space. The physics of "empty" space is quite complex and does not involve a pure void, so that's not an assumption at all.

Neutrinos do not travel faster than light, or we'd receive them in our neutrino detectors before the light from a supernova got here. They travel at very close to (but under) the speed of light. This is a very well-measured phenomenon. Reading further, Michelson and Morley didn't measure the speed of light, just measured that there was no change in the speed of light dependent on the direction of motion (i.e. no "ether" that filled space as a propagation medium).

Everything you typed above is basically (I read it and wasted my time) nonsensical. It does not compute in any logical way, no matter how what you typed may resonate with you. For example, the ratio of the radius of the Sun and the orbit of the Earth has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental physics. Nothing whatsoever.